William Webster, formerly a federal judge from St. Louis, was director of
the FBI (1978-1987) and director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1987-1991).
He is currently on a six-person committee set up to revamp security at the
white house.

WASHINGTON - In the wake of the most destructive
terrorist attack ever committed on United States soil, two questions will
be increasingly on the minds of most Americans: What does the future portend?
Will our law enforcement agencies - especially the FBI - be up to the
challenge in a democratic society?

First and foremost, the many acts of courage and compassion
and the absence of panic in Oklahoma City speak volumes about the character
of our citizens, their preference for order and their confidence in the
many agencies working swiftly in the aftermath of the explosion -the investigators,
police, firefighters, rescue workers and those rendering first-aid and
medical care to the injured.

The almost total absence of panic, the calm and effective
leadership provided by the president, the governor and the mayor should
give little satisfaction or encouragement to those who might contemplate
similar acts of violence against our institutions or our citizens.

Second, the speed and professionalism with which the
FBI and other law enforcement components advanced the investigation, from
bits and pieces of forensic evidence to the identification and apprehension
of some suspects in the case, reflected the firm determination of our
government at all levels to keep pace with the increasing capacity of
terrorists to inflict harm.

The challenge of the future will be to protect our citizens
from terrorist violence without sacrificing the liberties that our system
of government was designed to preserve.

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke, the great
British statesmen, defined his vision of liberty with order. In the years
that followed, the pendulum has sometimes swung too far on one side of
the equation or the other, yet ordered liberty has been central to our
society, as we value it, and to our individual freedom, as we cherish
it. The terrorist puts that precious balance, so carefully considered
in our Constitution, at risk.

There are very few laws that directly define and prohibit
terrorist acts. Most such acts are prosecuted through other laws that
prohibit certain kinds of specific conduct. Terrorism is most generally
understood to be the use of violence to obtain political objectives through
fear and intimidation. No matter how it is clothed in claims of worthy
purpose, it is always criminal.

Around the world, the principal targets of international
terrorists continue to be US citizens, US facilities and US property located
abroad. Much of this activity for many years was considered to be political
and therefore beyond the reach of international institutions such as the
United Nations and INTERPOL. Largely through US efforts, this view has
changed and acts of criminal violence against innocent citizens away from
the scene of the conflict are now condemned as criminal.

As a consequence, civilized nations are now more willing
to deny sanctuary and to pursue and apprehend fleeing terrorists within
their boundaries. Intelligence agencies now cooperate more readily with
one another to deal with this common threat to ordered liberty. (One of
the as-yet-untold stories is how so many nations worked together during
the Gulf War to defeat the terrorist teams sent abroad by Saddam. Hussein,
and with such good results).

NO GLOBAL TERROR
In the US, international terrorism has been kept to a very minimum, although
there have clearly been links between terrorist groups abroad and sympathizers
in the United States. The World Trade Center explosion is the most recent
example.

Statistically, however, the numbers are small. Distance
plays a role, as does the obvious advantage to the terrorist of attacking
Americans in parts of the world where there is less protection. Likewise,
the investigative capacity of the FBI has been a major deterrent to the
international terrorist.

Domestic terrorism-our "home-grown" groups
-has functioned at different levels of effectiveness over the years, but
has largely been brought under control. In 1978, when I became director
of the FBI, we were experiencing about 100 terrorist incidents per year
from a wide variety of organizations. The two most active and violent
groups at that time were the left-wing Asala and the right-wing Justice
Commandos for Armenian Genocide, both protesting Turkish involvement in
the 1915 slaughter of Armenian nationals. Croatian and Serbian groups
were carrying on their homeland feuds. Puerto Rican independence groups
were also active. Remnants of the activists of the 1960s were still functioning.
Militiatype groups opposed to taxes, government interference and often
advocating white supremacy were attracting followers willing to resist
law enforcement and prepared to die in defense of their right to bear
arms against the authority of hated government.

By 1987, when I left the FBI, the annual number of domestic
terrorist incidents had shrunk to a mere handful. During this period,
and continuing today, the FBI had worked to improve its response capability
with local strike teams and a national Hostage Rescue Team. Of equal importance,
the FBI improved its intelligence capability in order to .get there before
the bomb goes off."

During the 1960s and early 1970s, the FBI came under
intense criticism for its infiltration of various organizations of dissent
and protest, often under pressure from government officials to "do
something about it." Out of this period came a series of congressional
inquiries and reports that recommended substantial limitations on the
FBI's investigative powers in domestic security cases.

STRONG GUIDELINES
Guidelines were promulgated by then-Attorney General Edward Levi prescribing
the quantum of information required to open investigations on suspect
groups, to engage in surveillance of group members, to insinuate informants
into the groups and otherwise employ sensitive techniques. Separate guidelines
were issued for investigating suspected international terrorist activity.
After almost a decade of experience, these guidelines were liberalized
under Attorney General William French Smith.

In the main, these guidelines have served the nation
well. A balance had been struck to protect both society and individual
privacy interests. The FBI responded by increasing its forensic skills
and counterterrorist training. New laboratory techniques, better tracking
records, computerization of files and fingerprints, and development of
undercover skills all contributed to more effective handling of these
sensitive investigations in conformity with attorney general guidelines.
Plots were uncovered and steps were taken to neutralize them.

In one undercover operation, we used a special agent
who had lost an eye as a paratrooper in Vietnam to defeat a plot to assassinate
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India while in this country. The terrorists
did not realize their "hit man" was a government agent. The
special agent, who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor,
had once more served his country well.

Terrorists have certain advantages over the average criminal.
They usually work in small, cellular groups to lessen the likelihood of
being penetrated. They can pick their target and their moment to strike.
Still, the FBI, with help from other agencies, has been able to detect
the planning of such activities in a number of cases and prevent them
from happening. In other cases, good investigative skills have brought
the perpetrators to justice and prevented similar events from happening
in the future.

The capacity to inflict major harm with readily available
materials by small groups with little expertise has already been demonstrated.
Steps must be taken to protect the security of key facilities and key
personnel without the appearance of a nation under siege. Our response
capability must be constantly updated. Our intelligence capability must
be enlarged and improved. But in all this, we must remember that the terrorist
wins when he causes repressive responses, when he undermines public confidence
in those whose duty it is to protect them. We must not let this happen.

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma tragedy, there will
be strong cries to 11 unleash the FBI." Greater access to certain
information, such as financial information about suspects, would be useful.
Current legislation requiring telecommunication companies to provide a
window for court-authorized electronic surveillance will protect a vital
investigative tool from being lost to digital technology.

Perhaps the most useful action at the federal level would
be a clear directive that the FBI is the lead agency in terrorist incidents
and investigations, and assuring needed cooperation and resources from
other agencies. Speed is important and turf issues should be eliminated
ahead of time. Rational refinements in the guidelines, not wholesale elimination,
may be appropriate. Justice Department interpretations should not be unduly
restrictive.

Beyond this, the FBI does not need to be "unleashed."
It must not be seen as authorized to infiltrate organizations merely because
they are regarded as suspicious or hostile to the policies of those in
power. The tools can be improved, but the constitutional requirements
must be respected and observed. This is the best formula I know for the
preservation of ordered liberty in America.